:::::::INFOWARS News Thread:::::::

[audiohi]

:::::::INFOWARS News Thread:::::::

For anyone who wants to view actual court documents and records, here's a good collection:

https://thememoryhole2.org/blog/doe-v-trump


Here are some excerpts:

 

[audiohi]

Read it boys. Read what your hero did.

 

[audiohi]

:::::::INFOWARS News Thread:::::::

So who was sending Alex Jones child porn? Epstein and Trump?

 

[Dr. Purpur]

Oh but you didnt post this one

Oh but you didnt post this one

• On Friday, a lawsuit filed against Donald Trump by 'Katie Johnson' was dramatically dropped
• Speculation that the suit was dropped because of threats or a pay-off by Trump went viral
• But DailyMail.com has learned that the claims against Trump were fiction
• 'Katie Johnson's' shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April
• She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
• On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
• Before that, she told her story to DailyMail.com
• Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow

By Ryan Parry West Coast Correspondent For Dailmail.com
Published: 14:53 EDT, 7 November 2016 | Updated: 12:38 EDT, 9 November 2016

• 
  
  
  
  The woman who alleged that Donald Trump raped her at age 13 at one of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's notorious 'sex parties' fabricated the story, DailyMail.com has learned exclusively.
  When the civil suit was initially filed last April, Trump's legal team branded the allegations 'disgusting at the highest level' and a 'hoax' clearly framed to 'solicit media attention or, perhaps... simply politically motivated'.
  Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow.
  Then, last Wednesday, Katie Johnson suddenly cancelled a packed press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time, saying she was 'too afraid' following a series of 'threats' against her.
  
  On Friday, six months after legal papers were filed, the civil lawsuit was dramatically dropped.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <img id="i-ee8e8520099755a8" src="https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/11/07/17/39F747F400000578-3914012-image-a-9_1478540467720.jpg" height="279" width="306" alt="" class="blkBorder img-share" />
• Copy link to paste in your message

Katie Johnson's shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April this year. She claimed she was raped by Donald Trump when she was a 13-year-old in 1994 - but now she has dramatically dropped the case as DailyMail.com learns that her story was not true

Social media erupted with claims that the woman had been paid off by Trump or was so terrified by threats to her life from Trump supporters that she was forced to withdraw her claims.
But DailyMail.com has learned that the real reason the suit was dropped is because the claims were simply NOT true.
The woman first sued Trump and Jeffrey Epstein under the name Katie Johnson - a name we know not to be her real identity - on April 26 in California federal court and filed an amended complaint in New York federal court in October, claiming she was subject to rape, criminal sexual acts, assault, battery and false imprisonment.
The court papers offered no corroborative evidence that her claims were true.
News that the allegations were dropped dismayed Hillary supporters who had hoped the claims would be the knock out blow for Trump's election campaign - already rocked in recent weeks by a string of sex assault claims.
Thousands of loyal Hillary followers had opened a discussion about the rape claims on Twitter and other social media networks hoping to damage Trump's push for the White House.
The Huffington Post jumped on the bandwagon of anti-Trump sentiment after she made her claims, asking: 'Donald Trump Is Accused Of Raping A 13-Year-Old. Why Haven't The Media Covered It?'

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  But DailyMail.com has been told that elements of what Johnson had claimed crumbled at the last minute.
  Her claims can today be exposed as untruthful, the key fact being that Donald Trump was not involved whatsoever.
  A source with knowledge of the controversial case told DailyMail.com: 'Katie Johnson's account had been believable and compelling right up until the last minute.
  'But new information emerged that suggested she had not been telling the truth.
  'Ultimately it was discovered that Donald Trump's name had been inserted into this, he was not involved whatsoever. After that she had no credibility.'
  The revelation slaps down any suggestion that Johnson dropped the case thanks to a secret financial settlement with Trump, as has been speculated on social media.
  It also clears Trump of any hint of wrong doing in association with the lawsuit.
  DailyMail.com interviewed Johnson before the case was dropped.
  She had claimed her motivation was to tell her story was to expose Donald Trump to stop him from becoming president.
  'We would have a rapist in the White House. I would feel horrified every single day if I stay in this country,' she said, in dramatic terms.
  Johnson said her experiences in the summer in 1994 still haunt her today.
  'As much as I try to forget about everything that happened, it always affects everything in my life,' she said. 'I mean it affects my relationships, I don't think I've ever had a successful relationship, one that I feel I can trust that person, there's always that mistrust.'

• Ah shucks.......

 

[audiohi]

Oh, you trust media sources now?

LOL

 

[audiohi]

Your letters are almost as large as your gun. You look serious.

 

[audiohi]

By the way, your link takes you to no article.

Nice work.

 

[Dr. Purpur]

Oh, you trust media sources now?

LOL

Im a centrist, and may not like tRump, but you gotta be fair and consistent.


Yeah, my guns are all serious. I have an armory and they are usually locked in the safe, except when I need them.
That was copy and paste from the article

 

[Dr. Purpur]

Its in the daily mail. you can look it up. There is also a discussion going on at the site "Above Top Secret"


https://www.abovetopsecret.com/

 

[audiohi]

Oh, you expect me to search for your incorrect citations too?

Fair and consistent indeed.

 

['Boogieman']

The left still think they can just slap anybody with rape and sexual assault allegations to get them out the way, lol them days are over.

 

[audiohi]

 

[packerfan79]

View Image

Makes sense. In response to #metoo. I would be hesitant to work alone with a female co-worker. I have no aspirations of political office, but still. I have a friend who was called into HR for telling an employee she had to put her phone away and work. It created a hostile work environment. Lol.

 

[audiohi]

Makes sense. In response to #metoo. I would be hesitant to work alone with a female co-worker. I have no aspirations of political office, but still. I have a friend who was called into HR for telling an employee she had to put her phone away and work. It created a hostile work environment. Lol.

How would you feel if your wife or daughter was told that she couldn't do her job unless she had a man with her? Would that still make sense to you?

 

[Absolem]

Grab'em by the pussy then claim their not your type if they say anything.

 

[White Beard]

Oh, you trust media sources now?

LOL

The Daily Mail counts as “media sources”?
That’s what they line Jones’ cage with....

 

[White Beard]

The left still think they can just slap anybody with rape and sexual assault allegations to get them out the way, lol them days are over.

“Rape and sexual assault for *EVERYBODY*!!!!!”

 

[audiohi]

The Daily Mail counts as “media sources”?
That’s what they line Jones’ cage with....

I'm just having fun

 

[packerfan79]

How would you feel if your wife or daughter was told that she couldn't do her job unless she had a man with her? Would that still make sense to you?

I get it, but you can't really ask that men who have families to support to risk their career, or even their freedom. In the real world actions have consequences.

 

[audiohi]

I get it, but you can't really ask that men who have families to support to risk their career, or even their freedom. In the real world actions have consequences.

I don't understand what your answer was.

Yes, you're ok if your wife is told to go home and she can't make money for your family today because she doesn't have a man to keep the boss safe from her?

Is that what you were saying?